View Full Version : Women 'may outsprint men by 2156' LMAO

Sep 30th, 2004, 01:21 PM

Women 'may outsprint men by 2156'

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40126000/jpg/_40126934_sprint203ok.jpg Women are set to become the dominant sprinters

Women sprinters may be outrunning men in the 2156 Olympics if they continue to close the gap at the rate they are doing, according to scientists.

An Oxford University study found that women are running faster than they have ever done over 100m.

At their current rate of improvement, they should overtake men within 150 years, said Dr Andrew Tatem.

The study, comparing winning times for the Olympic 100m since 1900, is published in the journal Nature.

However, former British Olympic sprinter Derek Redmond told the BBC: "I find it difficult to believe.

"I can see the gap closing between men and women but I can't necessarily see it being overtaken because mens' times are also going to improve."

A team led by Dr Tatem, from the Department of Zoology at Oxford University, calculated that by 2156, a woman sprinter could cover the 100m in 8.079 seconds.

That would put women ahead of their male colleagues, who are expected to manage a best result of 8.098.

The mathematical formula used by the scientists indicated that women's 100m entrants could be in serious contention to post a faster finishing time from the 2064 Olympics onwards.

But the point at which they were most likely to edge in front of the men was the 2156 games.

'Dominant force'

Dr Tatem said: "We are not saying categorically that women will overtake the men but we think there is a chance and we have put this up for discussion.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40126000/jpg/_40126976_nes203ap.jpg Yuliya Nesterenko's successors could close the gap with the men

"The trends found show they seem to be closing the gap, so maybe one day they could become the dominant force."

Aided by colleagues from Oxford, the University of Southampton and Kenya, Dr Tatem logged Olympic winning times from the start of the 20th Century.

At the first women's 100m event, staged in Amsterdam in 1928, the winning time was 12.2 seconds compared with the men's 10.8 - a difference of 1.4 seconds.

By 1952, the margin had decreased to 1.1 seconds, with the men hitting the tape at 10.4 seconds and the women at 11.5.

In Olympics between 1988 and 2000, the difference was under one second. But in Athens this summer, the gap widened to 1.08 seconds, with Yuliya Nesterenko of Belarus taking the women's title at 10.93 seconds and American Justin Gatlin winning the men's event in 9.85.

Dr Tatem said: "This year's Olympic final was a little unusual in that some of the world's fastest runners were not present, so the time wasn't perhaps as impressive as it could have been." However, he said if overall trends continued, the gap would close up again to 0.84 seconds at the next Olympics in Beijing in 2008. The world 100m records are currently held by Americans Tim Montgomery (9.78 seconds) and Florence Griffith-Joyner (10.49 seconds).

Sep 30th, 2004, 01:24 PM
what a waste of time doing this research :rolleyes:

what planet are they living on :o

scientists and their graphs :o :tape:

probably kept on progressing their chart and then wow bingo :o

I bet the scientiests are wondering when the Womens Pole Vaulter is gonna break 10m clearances.
cos at the rate they are progressing, its gonna be soon :o

Sep 30th, 2004, 01:26 PM
8 seconds :haha:

Oxford :tape:

Sep 30th, 2004, 01:29 PM
dont they have better things to study?

anyway, at the rate we're going, the air will be so polluted by then that we'll hardly be able to breathe, let alone run.

Sep 30th, 2004, 02:53 PM
An Oxford Uni study?
That doesn't exactly reflect well on the rest of us Britons when supposedly our cleverest people spout crap like that.

Sep 30th, 2004, 03:51 PM
I'm hoping to go to Oxford. Hopefully they won't teach me crap ;)

Sep 30th, 2004, 10:15 PM
I'm hoping to go to Oxford. Hopefully they won't teach me crap ;)
maybe you can teach them some sense ;)

Oxford comes out with the most pointless "scientific" researches ever :rolleyes:

Oct 1st, 2004, 02:32 AM
Doesnt Florence Griffith joyner still have the World record?? and that was in the 80s! :eek:

Oct 1st, 2004, 03:16 AM
:lol: I think they mean = women from that generation will outrace men from the current generation

dunno about anyone else, but if I'm still alive by then, I'll be over 200 years of age; it's a good bet that most women at that time should be able to outrace me

Oct 1st, 2004, 03:20 AM
Doesnt Florence Griffith joyner still have the World record?? and that was in the 80s! :eek:

yes in both the 100 and 200

Oct 1st, 2004, 10:15 AM
:lol: :scratch:

Oct 1st, 2004, 07:17 PM
Doesnt Florence Griffith joyner still have the World record?? and that was in the 80s! :eek:

truly amazing, even with the possible aid of performance enhancing drugs

Oct 1st, 2004, 07:29 PM
I hope it will happen. ;)

Oct 1st, 2004, 08:19 PM
Yeah, right. :confused: :cuckoo:

Oct 1st, 2004, 08:59 PM

Oct 2nd, 2004, 12:11 AM
like Homer Simpson usually say:

Evelyn Tremble
Oct 3rd, 2004, 05:42 PM
Outsprint men by when? Oh come on the only reason that women still keep us around is that vibrators cannot mow the lawn.

Oct 4th, 2004, 12:16 PM
men will always be superior at all events

Oct 4th, 2004, 12:49 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if they factored in the effects of pollution and food additives by 2156. That should even things out :tape:

Oct 5th, 2004, 05:40 AM
The same thing comes up every 10 years or so. It puzzles me how educated people can be this stupid. If a man works out all his life and can bench press 225 pounds when he's 20 years old, 315 pounds when he's 30 years old, and 405 pounds when he's 40 years old, does this mean that by his 70th birthday he should bench press 675?

Very very simple. It amazes me that these people are too stupid to get it. Men have been performing in these events at close to their highest potential for 70 years, whereas Women have been for only about 20 years.

Oct 5th, 2004, 05:57 PM
Yeah that sounds realistic. :p